October 21, 2014, 05:22:29 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - KyleSTL

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 28
61
Lenses / Re: Lens reversal macro on canon 17-40mm
« on: October 04, 2013, 11:39:07 AM »
77mm reverse macro adapter is liable to not fit very well on your camera body. I tried one out of curiosity, but there isn't enough clearance from the flash/hotshoe protrusion to really work.

+1 for nifty fifty with 52mm reverse adapter. Or if you're thinking of doing a lot of reverse macro, find a lens that lets you set the aperture manually on the barrel (Nikon's nifty fifty on a Canon body, for example, is even better than Canon's).
I was thinking the same thing, but you could always do something like a EF to 58mm thread and add a step-down ring for 77 to 58 or something like that to give you a bit more clearance, but that would also affect your macro maginfication by moving the lens further out.

62
EOS Bodies / Prediction for next round of DSLR cameras
« on: October 01, 2013, 03:57:36 PM »
Higher resolution LCD screens

If Canon were to produce an LCD with the same pixel pitch (326 ppi) as the iPhone 4-5S and the 3:2 aspect ratio it would have a resolution of -
3.0":  814 x 542 (1.32 million dot)
3.2":  868 x 579 (1.51 million dot)
3.5":  960 x 640 (1.84 million dot) - same size as iPhone 4/4S

If Canon were to produce an LCD with the same pixel pitch (441 ppi) as the Samsung Galaxy S4 and 3:2 AR it would be -
3.0":  1100 x 733 (2.42 million dot)
3.2":  1174 x 783 (2.76 million dot)
3.5":  1284 x 856 (3.30 million dot)

Better than the current 720 x 480 (1.04 million dot) displays (288 ppi @ 3", 270 ppi @ 3.2"), and could allow Canon to tout the highest resolution LCD on any DSLR (Samsung would still have the biggest, though, with the almost-unusably-large Galaxy series at 4.8").  Does anyone know what type of panel technology is used in current DSLR LCDs (TN, MVA, PVA, IPS, eIPS, etc)?

What are your thoughts?

63
Lenses / Re: UCSD Science FAIL
« on: September 27, 2013, 08:37:46 AM »
OK, now it's starting to make sense.  Thanks for sharing the link, Pi.  This does seem like an interesting technology.  I just wonder what that section of the image would look like if you put a Pentax Q + shift adapter (for the higher pixel density ~ 250MP FF equivalent) on the Canon 8-15mm.

Also, here's a presentation:
http://psilab.ucsd.edu/publications/(presentation_2013)_stamenov_(OSA_IS).pdf

64
Lenses / Re: UCSD Science FAIL
« on: September 26, 2013, 07:04:24 PM »
OK, maybe the science isn't quite as horrible as Tom's lead me to believe.  I read through the link posted by Drizzt321 and still think the images provided have a very skewed control.  We could rename the paper:

"UCSD Discovers Using Higher Pixel Density Results in Pictures with Greater Detail"

Read through it, what I took away from it is that they created a 12mm lens (what is the effective image circle?) much smaller than the Canon 8-15mm Fisheye - definitely an impressive feat.  However the article talks about 5MP sensors (what size are said sensors?) with an unknown pixel pitch being used with this lens.  The graphic and caption read:



Quote
Advantages of a monocentric lens. Top: This image was captured with a conventional wide-angle lens, a Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR with a 12mm focal length. Middle: An inset of the image above. A close-up (right) of the man holding the board shows that this picture, taken with a conventional wide-angle camera with 12mm focal length, does not have very high resolution. Bottom: An image taken with a monocentric lens relayed onto a high-magnification digital microscope. This system did not include the fiber coupling developed by the researchers for their prototype camera, but the clarity of the detail shows the potential of using monocentric lenses to take images with both high resolution and a wide field of view.

So why is there no level playing field, say, each lens tested with the same sensor (or at least of the same pixel pitch), like shown in the test bench?:



I'm not knocking the fact that they have created a pretty impressive lens, especially considering its size (and also the apparent lack of chromatic aberation), but the picture shown, I feel, is extremely misleading and implies that the absolute most the 8-15mm can resolve is 22 MP (which I don't believe for a second).

65
Lenses / UCSD Science FAIL
« on: September 26, 2013, 03:39:39 PM »
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/marblelike-lens-smartphone-slr,news-17607.html

I'm not even sure where to begin with this article.  If anyone can find the paper on which this is based, I would love to pick apart their scientific method.

66
Lenses / Re: Cost for Canon Factory Adjustment/Tuning
« on: September 25, 2013, 08:41:46 AM »
I did some testing last night and both lenses need to be sent in.   :(  They are pretty soft wide open.  Luckily I got each lens and parts for $418 and $410, respectively.  I'm going to ask some of my friends if they'd be willing to send them in under their CPS account so at least I can get a bit of a discount on the calibration.

67
Lenses / Cost for Canon Factory Adjustment/Tuning
« on: September 23, 2013, 08:01:21 PM »
I just fixed 2 copies of the 24-105mm (both had the infamous broken aperture ribbon cable issue).  They are both working flawlessly, however, I have no way of testing the lens to see what affect on image quality removing and re-installling the two sets of eccentric adjusting sliders had.  I would like to send the lens to Canon for adjustment before I sell one off, but Canon does not do up-front quotes without inspecting the lens.  Has anyone sent a lens to Canon out of warranty for adjustment (not repair)?  If so, how costly was it in the US?  Any help or experiences are greatly appreciated. 

I would like to be totally upfront about a lens when I go to sell it, and I would prefer to say it just came back from Canon for optical tuning (either way I'll tell the buyer I personally did the aperture replacement).  If the cost for tuning is fairly inexpensive I'll do it, but if it's going to run $150+ then it won't be worth it.

68
Lenses / Re: 70-300mm IS due for update
« on: September 17, 2013, 02:06:54 PM »
The point is that the 70-200/4L and 200/2.8L offer better IQ than the 70-300 non-L, even cropped to the 300mm AoV, and for similar cost. 

Also, as I stated - I tried two copies of the 70-300 non-L, and found both to be unacceptably soft from 200-300mm.  On an 18 MP APS-C, stopping down to f/11 was about the best compromise between lens sharpness and diffraction, and on FF away from the center, neither delivered acceptable sharpness at any aperture. Not acceptable for $650, not acceptable for $275. Obviously, I'm judging based on my own standards and for the lenses I tried, YMMV.
I think neuro hit the nail on the head here, much better IQ can be achieved with shorter FLs cropped to 300mm than the 70-300 IS, and also have the added benefit of good AF, build quality and overall handling.  Add to that the fact that we are discussing this lens against the likes of the 55-250mm and when you consider the price of all the lenses we're discussing, it is very clear that the current 70-300mm IS is overpriced:

LensYearMSRP     Retail    Used
70-210mm USM1990------$125-150
100-300mm USM1990------$125-150
55-250mm IS2007/2011   $300$265$125-150
Tamron 70-300 VC    2010$450$450$230-280
70-300mm IS2005$650$650$300-360
70-200mm L1999$710$680$475-525

The discontinued 1990 USM lenses (15 years older) offer similar IQ with better build quality and focusing for considerably less money.  Conversely, the 70-200L non-IS is slightly more expensive but is substantially better in all aspects.

69
Despite an exceptionally dark shooting environment4 of less than 0.01 lux, a level in which the naked eye would have difficulty discerning surrounding objects, the CMOS sensor was able to capture not only the color of the light emitted by the fireflies, each of which measures only a few millimeters in length, and their movements, but also the surrounding vegetation in which the species lives.

0.01 lux = -8 EV
http://www.sekonic.com/support/evluxfootcandleconversionchart.aspx

-8 EV:
1 sec, f/1.4, ISO 12800
1/15 sec, f/1.4, ISO 204800

That's some crazy low-light.  According to this a rural landscape lit by startlight (I assume a new moon) is an EV of -6.

70
Lenses / Re: 70-300mm IS due for update
« on: September 12, 2013, 11:41:26 AM »
I have both the non-L 70-300 IS and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.

I use the non-L far more. Certainly not because it's better. It's not. But, it is much better than then retired 100-300 and for a host of reasons I found it to be a better lens than the 55-250 (it should be as it costs more).

I am very happy with the 70-300 IS. It can be sharp all the way to 300mm. Of course, it's not a low light lens and of course it can't compare to the 70-200 series but it's a fine lens. It's light, it's small, it is well built (unlike the 55-250) and it's a full frame lens. Is it worth $650? No. I bought a near mint copy for $275.

I think the STM version of the 55-250 may give it run for the money at least for those who do not also have a full frame body.

I think many of the people criticizing the non-L 70-300 either are confusing it with the 75-300 series or have never used it. For years users of both the 70-200 f/4 non-IS and the non-L 70-300 IS have debated which is the preferred lens. The IQ is better on the L but there are several reasons the 70-300 may be the preferred or better lens for many people.
Having owned the 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5, 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM and now the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM I can say that at the long end of each of their ranges the 70-300mm is no better than the other two in IQ.  Mid range and at the wide end, I'd give the 70-300mm the advantage (but not by a wide margin).  Obviously the 70-300mm has IS which the other two lack, but as far as focusing goes 70-210 and 100-300 are head and shoulders above the 70-300. 

The only advantages the 70-300mm has over the 70-200mm f/4L non-IS are:
- Smaller
- Lighter
- IS

In every other department the 70-200mm is a much better lens, in my opinion.

EDIT:  I have used the 70-200mm f/4L on a few occasions, so I am speaking from personal experience.

71
Lenses / 70-300mm IS due for update
« on: September 11, 2013, 11:41:26 PM »
I'm sure I'm not the only one with this opinion, but don't you think the 70-300mm IS is embarrassingly outdated, especially considering its Nikon equivalent?:

  Canon 70-300mm IS USM  Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR 
Focusing Design    Front focus, extending, rotating, no FTM      Internal focus, FTM 
Focusing Motor  Micro USM, noisy, slow  Ring-type SWM, silent, fairly fast 
Stabilization  3 stops  4 stops 
Year  2005  2006 
MSRP  $650 US  $590 US 
Street Price  $360 US eBay / $650 US B&H  $420 US eBay / $587 B&H 

One could say that Canon did upgrade it by releasing the 70-300mm L, but that is in a whole different price bracket, and shouldn't be compared.  It would be like comparing the Canon vs. Nikon 28-300mm lenses; they are clearly in different classes.  How has Canon not updated this lens in the past 7 years?

I must say, I miss the fast, quiet and accurate focusing my old 100-300mm USM and 70-210mm USM lenses had; and they were small and light, too.  If either of those lenses had IS I would not have considered 'upgrading' to the 70-300mm.  I wish Canon would up date this lens to be on par with Nikon and stay in the same price bracket.

I also find it funny that Canon announced this lens alongside the crowd-pleaser 24-105mm L. 

By the way, I have used both, as I own the Canon and my dad owned the Nikon (on a D600).  The Nikon wins hands-down in overall feel, responsiveness, build quality, etc.

72
The first ever production FF DSLR was the Contax N of spring 2002. The 1Ds was the second FF DSLR, launched in September 2002, allowing of EF lenses with the conventional film AoV.

Worth noting that the Contax N used a Phillips CCD sensor, and the 1Ds was CMOS.  Similarly, the original 1D was a CCD sensor (with a 1/500 s Xsync, and made by Panasonic), while the 1D II and subsequent models were CMOS.
Philips ;)


Mark it on the calendar folks, neuro was corrected by another member.  /joking

Neuro, I totally agree with you that the DCS460 was one of the most unelegant designs ever.  However, Canon was not immune to ugly-early-DSLR-syndrome:

DCS 1 / DCS 3 /DCS 5 - http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=2936.msg61510#msg61510
Kodak DCS 520/Canon D2000 - http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakdcs520/
Kodak DCS 560/Canon D6000 - http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/dslr/data/1995-2004/1998_eos-d6000.html?lang=us&categ=crn&page=1995-2004
Look at how far the backs stick out for the DCS 1/3/5 cameras - you'd practically need the EX15 eyepiece extender to even get a complete view.

Even the D30 and D60 had horrible ergonomics for the AF, Drive, and AE butons:


73
Lenses / Re: I Repaired my own 50mm 1.4, and so can you!
« on: September 08, 2013, 11:38:16 AM »
Thought I'd update the thread with my success today.  I replaced the aperture in a 24-105L and it is working flawlessly.  Total amount spent - $418.18.  Not bad considering it was my first L lens.  One thing I learned while disassembling it is that it has two apertures.  One normal aperture for stopping down, and another secondary aperture that closes down based on focal length (to keep the aperture constant throughout the zoom range (without it I'm guess this lens would be a 24-105mm f/2.8-4).  The standard aperture in the 24-105mm is 8-bladed, the secondary aperture is 9.  Just thought you would all find that interesting.

EDIT: I used these two videos to help guide me through the process -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFR7ZG341kQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRUTrNoDD1M

74
Lenses / Re: I Repaired my own 50mm 1.4, and so can you!
« on: September 06, 2013, 05:19:18 PM »
As someone who has turned thousands of screws on cameras and lenses, be aware that although the screws look like Phillips head, they are in fact not.  If you would like to prevent damage to screw heads and be able to properly tighten everything upon reassembly, a set of JIS (Japanese Industrial Standard) screwdrivers is recommended.  I own an recommend Moody Tools in the USA, as they are one of the few tool makers still making JIS and supplying them in the US.

I went through 3 sets of Phillips micro screwdrivers before I said "enough" and special ordered a set of JIS on Amazon.  After receiving them and using them, I question why it took me so long to take the plunge.  If you intend to fix one lens one time, Phillips will do just fine, if you think you might start playing around with other broken cameras or lenses it's worth it to pick up a set.  Magnetic handles are handy, JIS #0 and JIS #00 will take care of 99% of the screws in a camera or lens.

http://www.moodytools.com/MTI_CATALOG_PAGE_11.pdf

75
Lenses / Re: I Repaired my own 50mm 1.4, and so can you!
« on: September 06, 2013, 12:14:23 AM »
what the what? (as my 4year old is prone to saying)
I like that phrase. May I have your 4 year old's permission to use it when appropriate? :)
"What the what?" Is a popular catch phrase of Liz Lemon (played by Tina Fey) on NBC's 30 Rock (a personal favorite of mine).

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 28